Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

[jacksonlamb]

The "ilk" you are talking about are the six Supreme Court Justices who joined in the majority opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case:

Horace Gray (Author of the majority opinion)
David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown
George Shiras Jr.
Edward Douglass White
Rufus W. Peckham

You are misreading them now. They have been dead for more than a century.

Guess what this court will do?

 

[jacksonlamb]

<SNIP>The question is, is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

You want to create a new category of citizenship now, 128 years. Guess what?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Kids of diplomacy’s aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US cause the gage doplomactc immunity

This Is Why a Natural Referendum Must Have a Veto on SCROTUS's Fatwas

Diplomats and their children come under the jurisdiction of those who deport them. They can't just wander around after committing a crime. In other words, someone can be held, but not prosecuted, waiting for notification to his country to take him back.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, your thinking is in error.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray explained that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant that the children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens.

The Court in Wong also noted another exception at the time: children of members of Indian tribes who owed direct allegiance to their own tribal nations rather than the United States.

The fact is, the majority opinion in Wong, authored by Justice Gray, confirmed the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." was intended to maintain common law exceptions in granting citizenship. These specific groups are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in the sense required for birthright citizenship:

• Foreign Diplomats: Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.
• Hostile Forces: Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.
• Foreign Sovereigns: Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.
• Foreign Public Ships: Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

So, as it turns out, Justice Gray has provided some of the same arguments I use.

The question is, is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

You keep banging on about "hostile forces" without ever making the case that any country is a "hostile force". You keep writing the same thing. Make your argument properly.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You keep banging on about "hostile forces" without ever making the case that any country is a "hostile force". You keep writing the same thing. Make your argument properly.

He can't. He is a one-note flute.

 

[johnwk]

You keep banging on about "hostile forces" without ever making the case that any country is a "hostile force". You keep writing the same thing. Make your argument properly.

Those who brake our law by invading our borders are very much hostile to our law.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what your post has to do with whether or not our Supreme Court is vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship such as, the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who have invaded our borders and give birth on American soil.

There are specific groups not considered ". . . subject to the jurisdiction. . . " of the U.S. in the sense required under the 14th Amendment for birthright citizenship:

Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.

Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.

Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.



Seems to me our Supreme Court would have to create a new category of persons granted U.S. citizenship if it asserts that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have invaded our country by the millions, are granted U.S. citizenship upon birth. The Supreme Court would be doing so without the knowing and willing consent of the American people as provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process.

 

[jacksonlamb]

What hostile forces, johnwk? You know that your side has no chance in the SCOTUS decision, of course.

 

[johnwk]

What hostile forces, johnwk? You know that your side has no chance in the SCOTUS decision, of course.

I see you never answered the question: Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

FACT: A new category of U.S. citizenship will be created if S.C. grants citizenship to offspring of illegal entrants.

If the Supreme Court declares the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are United States citizens upon birth, they certainly will have created a new category or group of identifiable persons as being natural born citizens of the United States.

FACT:

By the terms of the 14th Amendment, the offspring of Indians were neither, naturalized or natural born citizens of the United States

FACT:

On June 2, 1924, The Snyder Act created a new category of U.S. citizenship for Indians under Congress's constitutional power to regulate Naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.)

CONCLUSION:

If a majority on our Supreme Court declares the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil are citizens of the United States upon birth, they will certainly have created a new category of natural born United States citizens. And doing so would usurp Congress’s exclusive power to regulate Naturalization. Likewise, our S.C. would be making a mockery of and nullify why our founders provided Article 5, in our Constitution (its amendment process) by which a willing and affirmative consent of the people is require to be obtained for such a significant recognition to be added to our Constitution.

Finally, our system provides elections in order for the people to change existing public policy. Currently, existing and unwritten federal public policy not law, recognizes the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil as U.S. citizens upon birth. Are we to forget, the good people of the United States suffered under the Biden Administration’s open-border policy for four years. If a majority on our Supreme Court decides to create a new category of citizenship for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil, they will have also nullified the very reason for which our Founders provided elections, and they will be undoing what a majority of voters voted for when electing Trump as their new President.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I see that you cannot acknowledge reality.

johnwk has no logical case for his argument, short of cutting Howard to arise from the dead.

 

[johnwk]

I see that you cannot acknowledge reality.

johnwk has no logical case for his argument, short of cutting Howard to arise from the dead.

Your repetitive trolling is noted. You never answered the question: Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Your repetitive trolling is noted. You never answered the question: Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

I am pointing out the fallacies of your posts, which is continued trolling reinforcing your points that have been demolished over and over. These children are American citizens. No one at all, except you, is silly to call it "a new category of U.S. citizenship".

Now stop trolling.

 

[johnwk]

Your repetitive trolling is noted. You never answered the question: Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those who brake our law by invading our borders are very much hostile to our law.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what your post has to do with whether or not our Supreme Court is vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship such as, the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals who have invaded our borders and give birth on American soil.

There are specific groups not considered ". . . subject to the jurisdiction. . . " of the U.S. in the sense required under the 14th Amendment for birthright citizenship:

Children of diplomatic representatives (such as ambassadors or ministers) of a foreign state are excluded because their parents carry their own nation's sovereignty and immunity with them.

Children born to foreign monarchs while they are visiting the U.S.

Children born on foreign public vessels (like warships) within U.S. waters.

Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded.



Seems to me our Supreme Court would have to create a new category of persons granted U.S. citizenship if it asserts that the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals, who have invaded our country by the millions, are granted U.S. citizenship upon birth. The Supreme Court would be doing so without the knowing and willing consent of the American people as provided for under Article V, our Constitution’s amendment process.

So, you're saying all criminals who break (it's break, not brake ffs) the law, are "hostile forces"?

You're not even trying. You don't have an argument, and you're coming on here like a child who wants something to be true, but really can't make the argument stick.

Again, either you can make out that a Chinese person is either a "hostile force" or they're not. And Trump have a Chinese person a "gold card", so, that means that Trump doesn't think Chinese people are "hostile forces".

You can try again, but I really doubt that this far into the conversation, that you can produce anything that isn't laughable.

 

[johnwk]

So, you're saying all criminals who break (it's break, not brake ffs) the law, are "hostile forces"?

Those are your words, not mine.

QUESTION:

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

 

[jacksonlamb]

Those are your words, not mine.

QUESTION:

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

You have used the words "hostile forces".

 

[johnwk]

You have used the words "hostile forces".

I have pointed out that "Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded" [from U.S. citizenship upon their birth].

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those are your words, not mine.

QUESTION:

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

Well I'm trying to figure out what your words are.

Because for the most part you're completely unable to make an argument for what you're trying to say.

The Supreme Court has the power to INTERPRET the US Constitution. If they think that a law, or the Constitution, has created that "new category of US citizenship" then they wouldn't be making it, they're be saying it already exists in what is written.

Whether you determine that this is them creating something is up to you.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I have pointed out that "Children born to alien enemies during a hostile occupation of U.S. territory are also excluded" [from U.S. citizenship upon their birth].

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of U.S. citizenship?

There may be 'hostile forces' in the US, but I don't think it is babies.

 

[johnwk]

Well I'm trying to figure out what your words are.

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of natural born U.S. citizenship?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is our S.C. vested with power to create a new category of natural born U.S. citizenship?

I don't think you're interested in a proper discussion. Come back to me when you can stop being a broken record.